Arora Management Services Ltd v London Borough of Hillingdon & Anor

The court’s discretion to expedite a trial requires real, objectively viewed urgency before the degree of expedition or other factors are considered. The court must also consider the wider interests of other litigants and any real prejudice to the respondent.

A stay pending an imminent appellate judgment is justified only where the judgment may materially determine or clarify the present proceedings and avoiding preparation would serve a legitimate purpose. A preliminary issue should be ordered cautiously. The court must have sufficient material to decide the issue, and should refuse the application where it risks duplication, delay or increased cost.

Arora sought expedition of its claim concerning the interpretation of a planning condition limiting parking spaces at Heathrow Airport. Heathrow Airport Limited sought a stay pending the Court of Appeal’s judgment in R (Heathrow Hub Limited) v Secretary of State for Transport, and alternatively sought determination of whether declaratory relief should be granted as a preliminary issue.

The London Borough of Hillingdon had discontinued its participation after undertaking to comply with the court’s ruling on the interpretation of the condition. The court determined the three interlocutory applications.

1. Expedition refused. The court applied the principles derived from W. L. Gore & Associates GmbH v Geox SpA and J. W. Spear & Sons Ltd v Zynga, Inc. Expedition is discretionary, engaging both principle and practice. The court must consider its wider responsibility to other litigants, the procedural history, any real prejudice, and first ask whether there is real, objectively viewed urgency. If that threshold is not met, it is unnecessary to assess the degree of expedition or the remaining factors.
2. The asserted effect of the claim on prospective airport expansion applications was speculative and of limited relevance. The evidence showed that the relevant baseline depended on many other factors. The court also rejected the contention that the planning application necessarily had to fail if the proposed parking spaces fell outside the cap. The existence of a public interest did not alter that conclusion.
3. Stay refused. The court considered the principle in Re Yates’ Settlement Trusts that a stay pending an important appeal depends on all the circumstances. The anticipated Court of Appeal judgment would not determine the planning issues and might not determine the competition issues. A complete stay would cause delay without useful purpose, although the parties could defer preparation on any issue affected by the judgment.
4. Preliminary issue refused. The court applied the caution expressed in McLoughlin v Jones, Steele v Steele, Rossetti Marketing Ltd v Diamond Sofa Co Ltd and Tilling v Whiteman. Whether declaratory relief was appropriate depended on the substantive issues, contested facts, expert opinion and the alleged alternative remedies. The court could not properly determine the discretionary question in advance. A preliminary hearing might cause duplication, delay and additional costs, particularly if evidence or an appeal were required.